Medical Law Brief
July 2010

Introduction

Welcome to the July edition of Medical Law Brief. Our feature article this month is written by Kieron West, Partner in our Occupational Disease Unit. The article discusses the issue of health authorities being faced with uninsured asbestos related claims which have not been reserved for. Kieron has considerable experience in conducting asbestos related disease claims on behalf of Strategic Health Authorities.

We also summarise two recently reported Kennedys' cases, the first where substantial damages were awarded for missed third degree tear following delivery.  Damages were exceptional in this case due to the severity of the injury requiring implantation of electrically stimulated gracilis neosphincter. The second case of C v Colchester Hospitals records an out of court settlement agreed to reflect litigation risks of Claimant succeeding in establishing his conservative treatment of pancreatitis led to an additional period of recovery of up to 60 days.

As always, if you have any comments or feedback about this newsletter or any of the issues raised, I would be delighted to hear from you.


Janet Sayers
Head of Healthcare Team
Key Contacts


Janet Sayers
j.sayers@kennedys-law.com


Tom Armstrong
t.armstrong@kennedys-law.com


Nico Fabri
n.fabri@kennedys-law.com


Christopher Malla
c.malla@kennedys-law.com


Mary Menjou
m.menjou@kennedys-law.com


Rob Tobin
r.tobin@kennedys-law.com


Edited by


Tom Armstrong and Jay Surti
Feature Article
NHS Asbestos Legacy – SHAs pick up the tab

In recent years health authorities have found themselves implicated in asbestos related disease claims.  Most of these claims have consisted of occupationally induced malignant mesotheliomas. 

Mesothelioma is an asbestos induced malignant cancer generally found in the lining of the lungs.  The condition is latent and usually occurs 30 or more years after first exposure to respirable asbestos fibres.  The condition is incurable and life expectancy generally ranges between 6 - 24 months from first physical symptoms.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous mineral and was until the late 1960s used extensively as thermal and sound insulation in all types of buildings, including hospitals. 

Asbestos insulation per se does not constitute a health hazard but when it is damaged or becomes friable with age, there is a danger of asbestos fibres being ingested and becoming lodged in the lung tissue remaining dormant until mutation of the mesothelial cell many years later.  Different types of asbestos fibre pose a different level of risk in the causation of a mesothelioma. 

The majority of mesothelioma claims brought against health authorities have resulted from occupational or para-occupational exposure.  Such claims have been brought on behalf of boiler men, general maintenance workers, laundry personnel, nurses, student nurses or by their dependants. 

Asbestos was widely used in the construction of hospitals.  It was by far the most effective fire retardant material.  Boilers, heating and water pipes were lagged in a matrix of asbestos and Portland cement.  Asbestos cement sheets were used for internal walls and fire doors. 

Due to  the numerous changes in the Health Service since the 1960s, few records have survived. Frequently, no valid insurance can be identified covering liability for a mesothelioma claim where exposure occurred 30 or 40 years ago.  Such a claim would not fall to be dealt with by the NHSLA’s claims handling service.  The old liabilities of Hospital Management Committees and Area Health Authorities have been inherited by the Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) who are unlikely to have reserved for such claims.  A typical mesothelioma claim is worth around £150,000 (exclusive of costs).  A flood of claims can cause a huge dent in an SHA’s budget.

Further, there are claims against SHAs from other culpable employers who seek to recover a contribution towards the damages and costs they have paid to a mesothelioma victim.

Kennedys has extensive experience and expertise in defending  uninsured asbestos related disease claims, particularly claims against SHAs.  Such claims are dealt with sensitively but firmly. It is important that the claims are properly scrutinized and that damages paid from health budgets are only paid where liability and causation are properly established. 

For further information please contact Kieron West (Head of Kennedys' Occupational Disease Unit) – Tel:  0845 838 4831, email: k.west@kennedys-law.com

Case Law
Hellaina Monou v Barts and the London NHS Trust [2008] LTLPI 7.5.10

Claimant aged 21 years, underwent extended episiotomy during delivery of her first child at Defendant Trust’s hospital. The episiotomy wound was sutured by the delivering midwife. Claimant complained of soreness and bleeding of perineum a few hours later and on examination a diagnosis of haematoma was made and ice packs advised. Claimant was discharged the following day.

Community midwife subsequently made three home visits.

Approximately three months after the birth, Claimant attended GP complaining of faecal incontinence and urgency. Upon examination, it was noted Claimant had suffered complete loss of perineum and anus was adjacent to the introitus of the vagina. Claimant underwent electrically stimulated graciloplasty and reconstruction of perineum. Subsequent anal manometry revealed Claimant had significantly reduced resting and squeeze pressures consistent with injury, as well as unilateral left pudendal neuropathy.

Claimant alleged negligence in failure to examine anal sphincter and identify third degree tear and repair immediately following delivery. Trust admitted breach of duty for failing to diagnose sphincter injury prior to discharge.

Claimant suffered incontinence for a period of 1 year until surgical repair of sphincter. The stimulator to her neosphincter would require periodic replacement and there was a significant risk in due course she would require permanent colostomy. She would require Caesarean section to deliver future pregnancies. She also suffered from adjustment disorder and a hypoactive sexual desire disorder.

Out of court settlement: £235,000 (estimated General Damages: £55,000).

Neil Davy instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP for the Claimant. Claire Toogood instructed by Kennedys Law LLP for the Defendant.

C v Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust [2009] LTLPI 26.5.10

Claimant, aged 57 years, admitted to Defendant Trust’s hospital with abdominal pains. Diagnosis of pancreatitis was made and treated conservatively using intravenous fluid, antibiotics and pain relief. Ultrasound showed no duct dilation or stones. Subsequent CT scan revealed severe complicated pancreatitis with necrosis of body and large mass extending from stomach to anterior and posterior left pararenal spaces.

One week after being admitted, an ultrasound guided drain was inserted into pseudo cyst and a large amount of haemorrhagic fluid drained. Drain remained in situ and Claimant was discharged with follow up, but no further antibiotics provided. He was advised to monitor levels of fluid draining over four to six weeks. Claimant’s condition deteriorated and one month later was readmitted as an emergency. Upon examination it was noted pus was discharging from the drain and he was treated with intravenous antibiotics. He was transferred to another hospital where endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was performed. There was complete disruption of the pancreatic duct. Stent was inserted and CT scan showed retroperitoneal disease. He subsequently underwent debridement and a feeding jejunostomy, as well as insertion of two drains into pancreatic bed. The drains were removed two months later.

Claimant alleged negligence in delay in investigating his symptoms further and performing ERCP when he was originally admitted, which would have shortened the length of his illness by 30-60 days. Liability disputed. The Defendant Trust argued initial conservative management was appropriate.

Out of court settlement: £7,500.

Dr Peter Ellis instructed by McCool Patterson Hemsi for the Claimant. Kennedys Law LLP for the Defendant.

Anthony Moore v Basildon & Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2010] LTLPI 12.5.10

Male Claimant, aged 46 years, was prescribed Linezolid by Defendant Trust’s hospital for an infected wound.  He was readmitted five days later suffering from severe anaemia, peripheral oedema and haemoglobin count of 4.2.  Claimant was incorrectly advised he was suffering from leukaemia and would die within a year, but it was subsequently discovered that he was actually suffering from peripheral neuropathy believed to have been caused by prolonged and unmonitored administration of Linezolid.

Claimant alleged negligence in prescribing Linezolid as he did not have MRSA, and for failing to monitor blood results weekly in accordance with BNF guidelines.  Liability not disputed.

Claimant suffered neuropathy in arms and severe neuropathy in his legs and a common peroneal nerve palsy in left knee.  His gait became abnormal causing him to fall frequently.  He had previously worked as an engineer but his injury caused restrictions due to difficulties climbing ladders.  Symptoms were likely to be permanent and he was likely to require further knee surgery with a risk of above knee amputation.  He also suffered psychological injuries after being advised he only had a year to live.

Out of court settlement: £175,000 (estimated General Damages: £60,000).

Lucy MacKinnon instructed by Withy King for the Claimant. Katie Gollop instructed by Bevan Brittan LLP for the Defendant.

E v The Estate of Witold A W Kmiot [2010] LTLPI 24.5.10

Claimant, aged 41 years, underwent surgery in relation to a right inguinal hernia. Prior to the surgery he enquired whether micro surgery would be possible as he was a self employed model and actor and was concerned about the scarring. The Defendant advised that micro surgery would be a less effective means of treating the hernia and would make little difference to the size of scar as compared to open surgery. The only risk referred to on the consent form was bleeding.

Following the operation the Claimant had an 11cm scar protruding over his underwear line and experienced numb genitalia on the right side.

Claimant alleged negligence in failing to refer him to a surgeon who could have carried out hernia repair by laparoscopy and failure to obtain valid consent. Liability disputed.

Prognosis – numbness was expected to resolve within one year. The scar was permanent and he recovered a modest sum for loss of opportunity to obtain “body” shoot work.

Out of court settlement: £15,000 (General Damages: £11,500).

Adam Korn instructed by Russell-Cooke LLP for the Claimant. Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP for the Defendant.

T v Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust [2009] LTLPI 8.6.10

A 68 year old female Claimant underwent hip replacement at Defendant Trust’s hospital. Four months later she experienced pain in her hip and was referred back for x-rays and was advised that pain was due to fluid build up before being sent home.

Claimant continued to experience pain over the next few months and was subsequently unable to weight bear and five months later was readmitted to hospital. Scan revealed MRSA. She informed staff of weakness in her arm. After a week she lost all sensation in arms and legs and was transferred to ICU. MRI revealed spinal abscess causing cord compression.

Claimant underwent operation to reduce pressure on spine but nonetheless was rendered tetraplegic and incontinent. During aftercare she developed gangrene in her left foot due to pressure sore. She required 24 hour care.

Claimant alleged negligence in failing to diagnose epidural collection earlier and carry out operation to reduce pressure sooner. Liability disputed. Delay in surgery of two days admitted however Defendant contended that Claimant would have suffered a severe cord deficit in any event.

Out of court settlement: £900,000 lump sum and periodical payments of £176,000 pa (estimated General Damages: £170,000).

Simon Taylor QC and William Latimer-Sayer instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP for the Claimant. Philip Havers QC instructed by Capsticks Solicitors LLP for the Defendant.

Legislation/Statute/Regulation
HFEA sets fees for single embryo IVF treatment

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) will redefine the fee charged to clinics for IVF. From 1st October the clinics will pay a single fee of £104.50 for the initial treatment cycle using single embryo transfer. If the first cycle is unsuccessful, each additional frozen embryo will not be charged. Currently clinics are charged for each cycle.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority 13th May 2010.
News & Press
Law firms could be hit by VAT charges for medical reports

Changes by HM Revenue and Customs to the treatment of medical reports for VAT purposes could cause firms significant additional cost. The changes have prompted the Law Society to make written submissions in the forthcoming VAT tribunal case of Barratt Goff & Tomlinson (BGT) v The Commissioners for HMRC. The HMRC has required law firm BGT to account for VAT on medical reports obtained for personal injury or clinical negligence litigation on the basis that lawyers read the reports and then provide a legal service. The hearing has been listed for 1st December.

Law Society Gazette 10th June 2010.
New guidance on end of life care launched

New GMC guidance, which comes into effect on 1st July 2010, advises doctors to pay more attention to wishes of dying patients, and where possible, make advanced care plans for patients expected to die within 12 months.

GMC 19th May 2010.
Hospitals to face financial penalties for readmissions

NHS hospitals that discharge patients before they are fully recovered could face financial penalties under new Government proposals.

Independent 8th June 2010.

Nurses challenge unfair vetting

The Royal College of Nursing is seeking a Judicial Review of the vetting scheme launched in October 2009 on the grounds that it may breach the ECHR by denying nurses a fair hearing or right to appeal. The scheme is designed to prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults. When fully operational all nurses, midwifes, nursing students and healthcare assistants will have to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority, which will have the power to strike professionals off if found guilty of certain offences.

Independent 9th June 2010.
Doctors’ fears force review of online medical database

The Government has announced a review of the national database following concerns expressed by doctors that patients were not being properly consulted and their medical notes were being added to the database without consent.

Daily Telegraph 15th June 2010.
Kennedys Healthcare team is based at: 25 Fenchurch Avenue, London EC3M 5AD Tel: 020 7667 9667 and Terrington House, 13-15 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 1NL Tel: 01223 533 060.

If you would like further information on our Healthcare team, go to our website

To unsubscribe from this email please click here
London
25 Fenchurch Avenue
London
EC3M 5AD
Tel: 0207 667 9667
Kennedys worldwide (including associated offices):

Auckland, Belfast, Birmingham, Cambridge, Chelmsford, Dubai, Dublin, Hong Kong, Karachi, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Maidstone, Manchester, Mumbai, New Delhi, Paris, Santiago, Singapore, Sydney, Taunton and Warsaw.
www.kennedys-law.com

Privacy statement
Disclaimer
Copyright

Kennedys is a trading name of Kennedys Law LLP
Kennedys Law LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (with registered number OC353214)


________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System. For more information on a proactive email security
service working around the clock, around the globe, visit
http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________